The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.

Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)

The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.

Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)

I've said this before in other threads. If the sky is clear, someone will see you on foot from miles away on IR. A vehicle running...good luck. If the sky isn't clear, and I have GMTI and SAR radar abilities, I can still see you.

Cam and concealment is going, and should already be starting to, expand well beyond helmet skrim, cam paint and foliage on vehicles. Airborne ISR is scary good and getting better.

I've said this before in other threads. If the sky is clear, someone will see you on foot from miles away on IR. A vehicle running...good luck. If the sky isn't clear, and I have GMTI and SAR radar abilities, I can still see you.

Cam and concealment is going, and should already be starting to, expand well beyond helmet skrim, cam paint and foliage on vehicles. Airborne ISR is scary good and getting better.

Given multi-spectral analysis is camouflage particularly useful? Or, should you just revert to scarlets in the field?

I don't see a reason to stop using traditional cam and concealment...but the benefit of it is (IMO) severely degraded if someone has IR. IR also has limitations, but unless you are completely out of sight, its hard to conceal yourself from it...

The CV90120 which it is based on would also do nicely (and removing one of the ammo racks would give you room for 2 dismounts), and the ROK's K-21 IFV now has a 120mm armed tank variant as well.

Logged

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.

Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)

So in your opinion then the LAV Recce option and the TAPV recce are fine, with their attached surveillance packages (big mast and all that)? Doesn't matter that the vehicles are big and noisy because we are either going to be far away using EO/IR on a mast peering over terrain, or are armoured/armed enough to fight our way out of a light vehicle or infantry engagement. Perhaps outfit the TAPV with a small RPV and don't go anywhere near the enemy formations. I can see that working on paper.

But that seems like armoured surveillance to me, not armoured recce (disclaimer: navy guy talking out of his a** here, take opinion with dose of salt). Can't really find or prove routes/terrain by sitting in one spot. Air recce doesn't find minefields (generally) or prove the terrain that vehicles and infantry can move over. Nor do they do all the other various things that boots on the ground do (identify jumping off points and securing them etc...some possible confusion with Recce Platoon jobs here...again navy guy). If that was the case then Afghanistan would have been a cakewalk with all the air surveillance and air recce elements we had.

The CV90120 which it is based on would also do nicely (and removing one of the ammo racks would give you room for 2 dismounts), and the ROK's K-21 IFV now has a 120mm armed tank variant as well.

My only issue with a 120mm light tank is that 120mm encourages you to hunt bear when you should only be able to deal with wascally wabbits. Perhaps a 105mm version would be better as it can kill anything as light as itself, support infantry with direct fire but not be able to duel a tank. And would leave enough space for 2 dismounts.

The UK might have it right with the Ajax as their armoured recce element. 40mm is stronger than most other IFV and recce element armour. ATGM don't seem very Canadian budget or doctrine wise, so Bradley is right out. Perhaps a ground launched version of CRV7 instead.

Third hand info: combat support elements like the TAPV, Recce not so much (big, noisy). Any newer first hand info now that more have been delivered and they were used in the Quebec floods?

Gun on a truck is my favourite. At least it's pointed in the right direction so you can shoot at the tank while running away!

Just looked up the Australian LAND 400 program. Their phase 2 competitors are the AMV35 and Boxer which are designated Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles. Australia wants STANAG level 6 armour on the base model for their recce elements (which is why LAV 6.0 didn't make the cut). Everyone seems to be going heavy. Maybe we aren't heavy enough or are just doubling down on a middleweight force with some heavy elements.

Gun on a truck is my favourite. At least it's pointed in the right direction so you can shoot at the tank while running away!

Just looked up the Australian LAND 400 program. Their phase 2 competitors are the AMV35 and Boxer which are designated Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles. Australia wants STANAG level 6 armour on the base model for their recce elements (which is why LAV 6.0 didn't make the cut). Everyone seems to be going heavy. Maybe we aren't heavy enough or are just doubling down on a middleweight force with some heavy elements.

Roger that on the truck. Same here.

And with respect to the heavy vehicle - I would like to go on record as suggesting that the next vehicle project be named Mantlet. "A mantlet was a large shield or portable shelter used for stopping projectiles in medieval warfare. It could be mounted on a wheeled carriage, and protected one or several soldiers."

Just to further that thought, I always wondered if it would make sense to create a second variant of the TAPV. So the initial variate carries out surveillance, while the second variant carries out fire support support. So take the existing design chassis from the surveillance variant, then modify a new variant with either the 120mm mortar, or with something like Spike-NLOS (not sure if anyone has seen the Israeli light design, but if they can mount 8 missiles on a Sandcat Truck, they should be able to mount at least that many on a TAPV). Add a light C-RAM component and an integrated light UAV and ensure the whole unit would be C-17 deployable. [Off Topic: Still disappointed we didn't purchase more C-17's while they were available].

Logged

IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism. National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97. Go Huskers!!!!

Is there even enough space to put a 120mm mortar system onto/in a TAPV? They look huge but I question their ergonomics and available internal space. I suppose you could put a bunch of stuff in that area that leads to the rear "exit".

LightFighter

Is there even enough space to put a 120mm mortar system onto/in a TAPV? They look huge but I question their ergonomics and available internal space. I suppose you could put a bunch of stuff in that area that leads to the rear "exit

There’s no room for a 120mm mortar IMO in the TAPV. The cargo space is quite limited, especially if your crew/dismounts have day bags in the rear compartment in addition to ration boxes, ammo, etc.

IMO, the TAPV is more suited to force protection/convoy escort role, and a urban patrol vehicle. I can’t comment if it’s a viable vehicle for Recce or not as I’m not Recce.

A better vehicle platform for a mortar would be a LAV without the turret.

IMO, the TAPV is more suited for urban patrols and force protection/convoy escort. I can’t comment if it’s a viable vehicle for Recce or not as I’m not Recce.

Not having driven this rig (nor will I ever...), I can't help but think it is not particularly well suited to x-country movement. 4 x roadwheels, and lots of weight, isn't necessarily a good combination. Lots of weight and stuck = really stuck (usually). I've done recce in jeeps, Bisons, M113 off the hardstand and of them all, my personal favorite for movement ability and flexibility was the Bison. It could swim, it went from 4 to 8 wheel driver in a jiffy, it could do highway speeds one minute and then be crossing very challenging terrain in 8 wheel drive 1 minute later. 8 wheels all with power, it took some effort or bad luck to get it stuck IMO (or a driver who was too lazy to drop the TPs to 25 knowing they were going x-country); I've had them on the go in pretty much everything from summer mud to winter snow banks. It was also easy to command, with the CC seat right behind the driver, hatches for the air/NBC sentry/JAFOs, it had some protection from small arms, fragmentation, the weather and bears . I could stand on the 'hood' beside the driver and edge the veh forward to just peak over a ridge...from the pictures, it looks like it will be impossible to get just a set of eyes over the ridge in a TAPV before the RWS/etc is visible on the crestline.

just some initial thoughts...however, I am sure the blackhatters are figuring out how to 'make it work' just like they did with the G Wagon and Coyote.

Quote

A better vehicle platform for a mortar would be a LAV without the turret.

Not having driven this rig (not will I ever...), I can't help but think it is not particularly well suited to x-country movement. 4 x roadwheels, and lots of weight, isn't necessarily a good combination. Lots of weight and stuck = really stuck (usually). I've done recce in jeeps, Bisons, M113 of the hardstand and of them all, my personal favorite for movement ability and flexibility was the Bison. It could swim, it went from 4 to 8 wheel driver in a jiffy, it could do highway speeds one minute and then be crossing very challenging terrain in 8 wheel drive 1 minute later. 8 wheels all with power, it took some effort or bad luck to get it stuck IMO (or a driver who was too lazy to drop the TPs to 25 knowing they were going x-country); I've had them on the go in pretty much everything from summer mud to winter snow banks. It was also easy to command, with the CC seat right behind the driver, hatches for the air/NBC sentry/JAFOs, it had some protection from small arms, fragmentation, the weather and bears . I could stand on the 'hood' beside the driver and edge the veh forward to just peak over a ridge...from the pictures, it looks like it will be impossible to get just a set of eyes over the ridge in a TAPV before the RWS/etc is visible on the crestline.

just some initial thoughts...however, I am sure the blackhatters are figuring out how to 'make it work' just like they did with the G Wagon and Coyote.

Like an improved Bison.

I can tell you with some certainty that the TAPVs faired better cross country than the Coyotes and LAVs this fall on the crew commander course. You know there is a formula for figuring out ground resistance and the ability for a wheeled vehicle to go across soft ground right?

Also, commanding an unstabilized vehicle right behind the driver is the same as a TAPV, literally a joke.

Regards

Logged

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." -Norman Schwartzkopf

Questions about the suitability of the TAPV for x country movement, carriage of 105mm cannon or 120mm mortars etc. are really a result of our shoddy doctrinal development. If we don't have a clear understanding of what it is we are supposed to do, and how to do it, then we will end up with unsuitable vehicles and equipment, in numbers which are unsuitable (too many or too few) and spend decades lashing things together in an attempt to make things work.

This is reflected in the endless arguments on these threads. Chris Pook is an advocate for Technicals and ATV's. I generally favour one or two weight classes up (Combat Guard, Broncos and CV-90 family) while there are advocates for much heavier vehicles as well (Leopards, PUMA's and so on). With the current state of our doctrine and government policy, the weird result is that all of us are correct, so long as we stick to our starting premises, and there is nothing in the CF doctrine which really says that any of us are incorrect........

Logged

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

I can tell you with some certainty that the TAPVs faired better cross country than the Coyotes and LAVs this fall on the crew commander course. You know there is a formula for figuring out ground resistance and the ability for a wheeled vehicle to go across soft ground right?

There seemed to be quite the effort in ensuring mobility and protection in this vehicle. Not so much for the hiding part. Nice to hear that it's working out on the mobility aspect at the very least.

Quote

Also, commanding an unstabilized vehicle right behind the driver is the same as a TAPV, literally a joke.

I don't follow, not being armoured. Can you elaborate/illuminate what you are referring to?

I don't follow, not being armoured. Can you elaborate/illuminate what you are referring to?

The "unstabilized vehicle" is a vehicle without a stabilized weapon system. It cannot effectively fight and move at the same time. This is not an acceptable standard on the modern battlefield, but we still by vehicles with unstabalized weapon systems.

The "unstabilized vehicle" is a vehicle without a stabilized weapon system. It cannot effectively fight and move at the same time. This is not an acceptable standard on the modern battlefield, but we still by vehicles with unstabalized weapon systems.

I can tell you with some certainty that the TAPVs faired better cross country than the Coyotes and LAVs this fall on the crew commander course. You know there is a formula for figuring out ground resistance and the ability for a wheeled vehicle to go across soft ground right?

That's good news then; you know me, I've been away from this game for a few years now *but* I still remember the x-country ability difference between a track, Cougar/Grizz, a jeep and a Bison.

The formula...either wasn't around when I did this stuff or it was something I'd never seen. I'd guess some of it relates to pounds per square inch, tire width, length between axles etc...I've seen when it doesn't work out so well and a 6 wheeled AVGP get stuck in places a ride on lawnmower could make it thru .

Glad the new rigs aren't useless x-country...I did see your posts earlier in the year on the FB and you weren't swearing too much about them so figured they must be 'ok'.

Ref my concern/comments about "turret down" stuff...sensors are good and all *BUT* they are also straws. Most EO/IR or TI systems are 'straws' and you don't get a very wide FOV even with the Wide lense. Sometimes you will see something with the Mk1 that your turret won't pick up because it doesn't have peripheral vision. We still man windows with crewmembers and use binos and NVGs because of this on the Aurora fleet. (Not necessarily for you, but for others who haven't operated sensors and crewed a CRV/AFV before)

Curious what the RCACs thoughts are on replacing a 25mm armed veh with one that only has a C6 and 40mm gren launcher; not to mention the surv mast (I haven't seen anything about it having the same suite as a Coyote).

So lots of mobility for their size, protection for the crew and a nice big glowing target for folks like me looking down from above.

Curious what the RCACs thoughts are on replacing a 25mm armed veh with one that only has a C6 and 40mm gren launcher; not to mention the surv mast (I haven't seen anything about it having the same suite as a Coyote).

My understanding is there is a LAV UP RECCE variant, which will have the mast, however what they said at announcement years ago, and what we have on the ground are two different things.

Logged

"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"